Obama Supports Speech Limits at United Nations

HERE WE GO AGIAN: FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION DOWN THE DRAIN

Anne Bayefsky
The Weekly Standard
October 7, 2009

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president’s penchant for “engagement” as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America’s most treasured freedom.

For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the “reformed” Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN’s lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an “abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.”

Military and Riot Thugs Detain, Dehumanize and TORTURE American Citizens

This might just confirm that unessasary violence is being enacted aginst protestors in this American society we currentley live in. Two questions: Why is this being done, and why are auhorities allowing suvh things to be done.

Jason Bermas

Prison Planet.com

Sunday, September 27, 2009

In what was possibly the most surreal, horrific, and unimaginable thing I have ever witnessed in my life, 1200 Riot Police and Military Personal rabidly attacked a group of well under 300 American citizens, many of them just students that were unaware there was even a protest going on. They then expanded their perimeter and shut large areas of Oakland down. This is how my last experience at the G20 in Pittsburgh went down, out of control authorities mercilessly attacking an unarmed crowd with batons, tear gas, pepper spray, sound weapons, and rubber bullets. Around 10pm on Friday night, long after the vast majority of dignitaries and protesters had left, it became evident that the outrageous show of force by the Military and Police was not enough to stave off their thirst for blood.

When I first arrived on the scene Luke Rudowski of We Are Change and a small group of protesters were peaceably assembling among a much larger number of college students just out for another weekend of fun in Schenley Plaza. Around ten minutes later Rob Dew arrived and we began filming the entire scene, it was evident that the number of police already in the area and the amount who were massing and surrounding the perimeter was extremely alarming.
As Luke bull horned that the people in this park meant the police no physical harm, and that they were simply exercising their right to free speech, a couple of masked individuals began to scream “He doesn’t speak for us”. These few provocateurs and well meaning idiots could have been easily dealt with by a handful of regular police officers dressed in their standard uniform, however that solution does not offer the pretext for over a thousand heavily armed psychotics to encircle and engage the American people.

I began to become extremely frightened as to what the outcome of the situation was going to be as I began to witness LRAD weapons showing up, dogs beginning to circle the perimeter, and then everyone putting on their gas masks. During all of this I was threatened with arrest three times and physically charged and chased by one of the officers. At that point I realized they were about to attack, and they did. Hundreds of armed to the teeth trained professionals began their march towards innocent young men and women, and then took it much further by launching tear gas canisters, battening people trying to leave, and firing rubber bullets randomly into the crowd. Luckily I was able to slip through the cracks of a blockade of only 6 or so riot thugs as they tried to amass more in that area and form another brutal line.

I personally witnessed a young man on a bike being beaten for no reason whatsoever and as he fled the officers then beat his bike. When the young man tried to retrieve his bike his knuckle was broken. Another man was gassed so badly he had to be taken to the hospital. This is how “Peace Officers” treat us?

During the very quick first burst of the madness I lost touch with Infowars Producer and Cameraman Rob Dew, I immediately thought he had been arrested, and I was correct. He was illegally detained and digitally fingerprinted in a separate process for “protesters”. Rob was cuffed all evening in a room full of other detainees, and was not released until 10:20 am the next morning with no charges being brought against him. Military and Police mocked them as Americans were being detained and processed often laughing at college students that had been beaten for no other reason for being in the wrong place around their campus that evening.
Luke Rudowski received multiple battens to his back and legs as the jackals descended on him with force, even though he had made it clear to all of them he wished them no violence. For his peaceful efforts Luke and Lee from We Are Change were separated from the rest of the more than one hundred detainees and sent to State Prison. Luke was strip searched, mocked, and charged with Disorderly Conduct and Unlawful Assembly, and will have to go back to Pittsburgh Wednesday to face charges. The Military and Police laughed as they took note of the

“Superstar” that had been all over the news on channel 11 and even National NBC, taking a sick pleasure in the torture of another human being.

Welcome to the New Amerika

G20 Summit Arrest

The G20 Summit discussions have been, and continue to be, a controversial event, and as such, a number of protesters frequently arrive. Protected under the Constitution, men and women in this country have the right to engage in such peaceful protests. The first amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

With that stated, I post the following clip. In all fairness, I am not sure what took place prior to this particular point in time, but what I do know, is that the US military was acting with force against a group of, what appears to be, people who have goatherd to peaceably assemble at the G20 Summit

‘Sneak-and-peek’ searches being used for regular crimes

I have always said that the Patriot Act was one of the worst acts that ever came out of the Bush administration, and my opposition to it comes directly from the fact that it gave right to authorities to search people expected of terrorism via wiretapping and sneak-and-peak searches.In effect, these "searches" were preemptive strikes against those the government thought to be terrorists. Now, while I am not surprised, it has come out that such power was actually used against all people, and in 2008, only a handful of people actually searched were terrorists.

Daniel Tencer
Raw Story
Thursday, Sept 24th, 2009

The Justice Department made 763 requests for “sneak-and-peek” warrants in 2008, but only three of those had to with terrorism investigations, Sen. Russ Feingold told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday.

“Sneak-and-peek” warrants allow law enforcement officials to break into homes and businesses and search the premises without the investigated party knowing. The authority for them was passed as part of the USA Patriot Act in late 2001, ostensibly as a counter-terrorism measure.
Sen. Feingold (D-WI) said that 65 percent of the cases for which sneak-and-peek warrants were used were drug investigations. And Assistant Attorney General David Kris told Feingold that, in most terrorism cases, surveillance methods are “generally covert altogether,” and do not use sneak-and-peek warrants.

The revelations strengthen the arguments of opponents of the Patriot Act, who have long said that the powers granted the government to fight terrorism in the wake of 9/11 would end up being used for other purposes. Now, it appears that one of those powers — sneak-and-peek searches — was never meant for terrorism investigations in the first place.
“It’s not meant for intelligence, it’s for criminal cases,” Kris told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “So I guess it’s not surprising to me that it applies in drug cases.”

“That’s not how this was sold to the American people,” Feingold responded. “It was sold — as stated on the DoJ’s Web site in 2005 — as being necessary ‘to conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists.’”

Both Kris and Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine agreed that “additional vigilance” is needed in monitoring the way the government uses surveillance powers.
Feingold is spearheading an effort to reform laws on surveillance powers ahead of the expiry of parts of the Patriot Act later this year. The Obama administration has announced it would like to see three key elements of the Patriot Act renewed. Those elements include allowing authorities to collect a wide range of financial and personal information on targets, as well as allowing “roving wiretaps” to follow suspects around.

But last week Feingold and seven other Democratic senators unveiled the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act, which aims to “fix problems with surveillance laws that threaten the rights and liberties of American citizens” without damaging the government’s ability to monitor suspected terrorists, the senators said in a joint statement.
The bill’s reforms “include more effective checks on government searches of Americans’ personal records, the ’sneak and peek’ search provision of the PATRIOT Act, ‘John Doe’ roving wiretaps and other overbroad authorities,” the statement said.

The bill would also repeal the Bush-era law that grants immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that participated in the federal government’s warrantless wiretapping program. The immunity measure was supported by then-Senator Barack Obama, but not by Vice-President Joe Biden, or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who as senators voted against it.

A Thought of My Own:Where Have all the Parents Gone

As the controversy over the "Obama Elementary Talk" wages, I begin to wonder what the driving force behind this is? Never in American history has the president ever addressed our young children in such a manner.

Therefore, I am led to ask why? Why is he addressing young students who, for the most part, have no sense of politics and government, nor do they posses the ability to logically asses that which they take in. Rather, students K-6 tend to ad hear to whatever they hear. The conclusion I draw then, is that this administration is looking to do more then have a simple "talk"

What then are they trying to do? To this no one can know for sure, but the entire Obama presidency as been hell bent on creating national unity, and a sense of state pride, not only for the nation, but for the state. I have said it once, and I will say it again: Fascism. It almost seems that this administration will try to raise a generation of youth who look to the state as a form of protection and comfort, and in so doing, will exchange their liberties for a "real sense of security and progress"

Of course, this can all be averted if the parents simply step in, and act on their children's behalf, right? Wrong, according to journalist John Ozberkmen, of the National Expositor, many parents are being told that they do not have the right to control their own children:

At least one school district, Tempe Elementary School District No. 3 in Arizona, is not permitting parents to pull their children out of class during Obama’s speech." “I have directed principals to have students and teachers view the president’s message on Tuesday,” Superintendent of Schools Dr. Arthur Tate Jr. said in a statement Thursday. “In some cases, where technology will not permit access to the White House Web site, DVDs will be provided to classes on subsequent days. I am not permitting parents to opt out students from viewing the president’s message, since this is a purely educational event.”

Not only is this a violation of parental right, but the outcome of it is requiring students to watch and listen to our president, even if it is against the will of their parents, who, at this stage in life, must act on their children's behalf. More startling still is the assignment these students were supposed to do after watching Mr. Obama:

According to Fox News, concern arose when one of the lesson plans was released. The lesson plans stated, students in pre-kindergarten through grade 6, are suggested to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” After the speech students are supossed to discuss what, ”the president wants us to do.”

They are supposed to ask what the president wants them to do! Is not the president's job to ask what we want him to do? I find this altogether disturbing in light of the numerous other issues that have taken place over the past 8 months or so. I can but only fear that this splendid experiment began in 1776, is about to end, and fail.

A Thought of My Own: Liberty V Tyranny

I know that this story is a few days old, but I think it, and the response of Hardball, is one which need not die.

The fundamental question here is do we, under the 2nd amendment, have a right to bear arms, even at a presidential event? My own position on this issue is yes! I understand the counter argument here, and it is a legitimate one, but where do we begin to draw the line where our rights begin and where they end. If I have a right to bear arms, as it says in the Constitution, then don't I have that right wherever I am, or do my rights have boundary lines? If so, where must I stop practicing my religion, where do I no longer have the right to due process, and is there a court somewhere where I can be held for double jeopardy or forced to incriminate myself?

Obviously the answer to these questions is no; there are no lines which exist where I must stop practising my right to free religion or to due process. If this is true for these rights, then why are there restriction upon other rights, not just the 2nd amendment, but even my right to peacefully protest, which is what this man was doing. Owning and carrying a gun does not make a person a terrorist; if such is true then there are many rednecks and hunters who, by that shere logic, are terrorists.

I am not saying we all bring semi-automatic weapons to presidential events, but the shere fact that he was carrying a gun, and if legally registers, is protected by the Constitution, and to remove that right only opens up opportunities to remove other rights. We might say that it is unsafe to bring a loaded weapon to an event like this, but isn't it much more unsafe to stand by and allow the rights we have to be stripped away. If we do that long enough this discussion will be moot, for there will be no right to bear arms, no right to free speech or the like.

Police Use Force AGAIN

Does anyone remember the story of police brutality against a pastor and an old women? Well, if you don't think they use unnecessary force, look at the video below.

A Thought Of My Own: Torture

How is it the policy of the United States to torture people, when we ourselves would shutter at the very idea of such actions towards others? Does our own willingness to torture indicate that we as US citizens have now begun to put variant values on different people of different races and creeds? Does not Emma Lazarus best describe the mindset of this nation with her poem The New Colossus when she so poignantly stated, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door" Does this no longer apply. Did it ever?

How is it the policy of the US military to allow such treatment of others who, according to our own documents, hold natural rights which only God can remove; among those include "life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" Is it the official policy of the majority of Americas to be double faced. We smear at the idea of the Holocaust, and scream injustice of Saddam Housain, and yet WE HAVE GETMO!

How is it that Christians will sit back and allow, by our own inaction, such atrocities to take place, even if such actions do not meet our own definition of what torture is? 1 Peter versus 8-9 assert: "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing." It matters not if we think a certain action is torture, rather, what matters is that we remain "of one mind" with the scriptures.

Torture is a violation of the sound doctrine to which this nation rests. I end with a thought from Thomas Jefferson who once said, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

Grandmother: Great Threat To PD

This is an odd story! If in fact a suspect did what the police claim this grandmother did, then perhaps force would be required. However, I am hard pressed to believe that a 72 year old women would vindictively violate the law to the extent that a younger police officer would feel threatened to the point of having to use a teaser on an elderly women.

My question is this, at what point do we as citizens stop taking blatant abuse, and begin to hold such actions accountable for what they are: abuse of violent power? Even if she did what she is being accused of, I cannot fathom that such drastic measures were needed to subdue her, especially after seeing how big the officer is.

As a nation of liberty and understanding, we need to come to the understanding that such actions are a clear violation of power.

Military Personnel Ordered To Comply With Illegal Private Firearms Registration

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

An alarming document sent to us by an Infantryman based out of Fort Campbell Kentucky shows that active duty military personnel are being secretly ordered to submit information to their Chain of Command on how many firearms they own privately, their location, as well of details of any Concealed Carry permits.

Though the order was apparently rescinded, the fact that active duty soldiers are being asked to submit every detail of their private firearm collection is a telltale sign that the second amendment is in dire straights. Furthermore, Alex Jones has personally confirmed that such directives are being issued all over the country.

The directive orders active duty personnel to report details of all privately-owned firearms to their Chain of Command, as well as future firearms purchases.

The memorandum was sent to us by a concerned 11B Infantryman based at Fort Campbell. In his e mail, the man expresses his shock at being ordered to comply with what amounts to a registration of privately-owned firearms.

Read entire article here

Former Top Rated NRA Senator to Introduce Gun Ban This Week

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 11, 2009

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat and member of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, plans to introduce an assault weapons ban this week. Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York, was at one time highly rated by the NRA for her advocacy of the Second Amendment.

Newsday claims Gillibrand has “undergone a transformation” over the last three months and has moved away from “her House record that won the NRA’s top rating while remaining a supporter of Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.” Since her Senate appointment, she has “passed just about every test on guns set by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy,” who reintroduced a bill closing the so-called gun-show loophole at a news conference last week.

It appears likely Ms. Gillibrand was a gun-grabber all along and used the Second Amendment as an election ploy. Polls indicate a large percentage of voters strongly support the Second Amendment.

McCarthy’s bill, H.R. 6676, would utilize the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for background checks on all gun store employees and dealers. In addition to H.R. 6676, three other bills have been offered including laws that would make it illegal for known or suspected terrorists to buy guns.

As reported by Infowars last week, the House is currently working on H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told WorldNetDaily the bill will likely be used in junction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report that characterizes advocates of the Second Amendment and others as terrorists. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt said. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists.”

Senator Gillibrand is working closely with gun-grabbing organizations, including New Yorkers Against Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign, according to Matt Canter, Gillibrand’s spokesman. New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and others are working with Gillibrand on “anti-trafficking legislation to stop the flow of illegal guns,” Canter told Newsday.

The Obama administration recently attempted to link the right to own firearms to drug cartel violence in Mexico. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials have said 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States. In fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. Statistics reveal that most of the guns flowing into Mexico come from the black market, Russian crime organizations, South America, Asia, Guatemala, and the Mexican Army.

Soon after his shoo-in confirmation, Attorney General Eric Holder revived the assault weapons ban debate. Responding to a reporter’s question on weapons’ regulations, Holder said, “Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder did not provide details on when legislation would be presented to Congress.

Democrats are reluctant to make additional attacks against the Second Amendment. In 1994, the issue was instrumental in handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Earlier this year, the Democratic-led Senate dealt a body blow to the gun control movement, when 22 Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., joined 40 Republicans to shelve firearms restrictions in the nation’s capital.

Democrats fearful of backlash have told the Obama administration they would “actively oppose” any renewal of the assault weapons ban. Democrat senators Jon Tester and Max Baucus warned they would “strongly oppose any legislation that will infringe upon the rights of individual gun owners.”

Democrats, however, are biding their time. Veteran gun-grabber Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, author of the 1994 assault weapons ban, told CBS’ “60 Minutes” on April 12 that she has no intention of reintroducing the assault weapons ban at this time. “I’ll pick the time and the place, no question about it,” she said, that is to say when the opportunistic introduction of such legislation is politically expedient and will not damage her party.

Government propaganda and exploitation of recent high profile “gun violence” stories by the corporate media have not turned the public against the Second Amendment. “Recent polls show shrinking support for new gun control measures and strong public sentiment for enforcing existing laws instead. So strong is the shift in public opinion that a proposed assault-weapons ban — once backed by three in four Americans — now rates barely one in two,” reports the Houston Chronicle.

An April poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today

Don't Tred On Me is Tredded Upon

Dr. Archie Jones

The American Vision

May 8, 2009

Our friends at The Patriot Depot just received a call from Rosemarie in Ball, Louisiana alerting Patriot Depot that her brother-in-law was stopped by small town Louisiana police and detained by the roadside for half an hour. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group. Why? Her brother-in-law (name not disclosed for privacy) had purchased and displayed a conservative “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his car.

The bumper sticker is based on the famous flag designed by American Revolution era general and statesman Christopher Gadsden. The yellow flag featured a coiled diamondback rattlesnake ready to strike, with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me!” underneath it. Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans’ reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights. By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights. The flag and the bumper sticker symbolize American patriotism, the need to defend Americans’ rights, and resistance to tyranny’s threats to American liberty. Those threats included-and include-illegal taxation, profanation of Americans’ rights, and violation of the fundamental principles of American law.

The notorious Department of Homeland Security memo, which was apparently based on the infamous Missouri State Police Report that described supporters of presidential candidates Bob Barr, Ron Paul, and Chuck Baldwin as “militia”-type potential extremists and potential terrorists, is not the first effort of leftist radicals to slander their political opponents as “extremists.” Some observers have noted that similar “reports” emerged during the Clinton administration. But “liberals” and other leftists have been calling defenders of traditional American limited, constitutional government, free enterprise, and individual liberty “extremists” since at least the 1964 election.

The political left’s attempts to establish a false equivalence between genuine left wing extremists and those who oppose the left’s assault on our culture, law, and liberty is more than propaganda to fool the ignorant and manipulate public opinion. Combined with the power of government, it is an attempt to harass, intimidate, and silence all political opposition-and probably an attempt to demonize them as a prelude to governmental oppression and persecution. Keep in mind that the First Amendment states,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Small town police misled by phony left wing “reports” are bad enough. Federal government agencies and their armed agents under the direction of leftist radicals are exponentially worse. They will tread on us. The time has come to let our voices be heard!

Holder vs. the 2nd Amendment

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 9, 2009

A sinister bill working its way through the House may eventually serve as a companion piece to the Department of Homeland Security’s “Rightwing Extremist” report that labels veterans and advocates of the Second Amendment as dangerous terrorists — H.R. 2159, The Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Peter King of New York.On April 29, with little fanfare or corporate media coverage, H.R. 2159 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. The bill would “increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The entire bill can be read on the Govtrack website.A similar bill was introduced in the Senate in 2007 but did not make it out of committee.

As noted above, the DHS has compiled a long list of folks the government considers terrorists. The bill, if enacted, would allow the attorney general, a documented gun-grabber, to deny millions of Americans due process. “[Rep. King] would deny citizens their civil liberties based on no due process,” Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, tells WorldNetDaily.

Pratt worries that the new bill will be used in conjunction with the DHS “Rightwing Extremism” report. “By those standards, I’m one of [DHS Secretary] Janet Napolitano’s terrorists,” Pratt continues. “This bill would enable the attorney general to put all of the people who voted against Obama on no-gun lists, because according to the DHS, they’re all potential terrorists. Actually, we could rename this bill the Janet Napolitano Frenzied Fantasy Implementation Act of 2009.”On May 1, 2009, Infowars reported on the existence of another DHS document, the “Domestic Extremism Lexicon.” It adds more suspected terrorists to the government’s list, including people working in the alternative media, anarchists, pro-life activists, skinheads, lone terrorists, members of the militia movement, “decentralized” terrorists, and others.

The DHS reports were distributed to “federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”Earlier this week, a man was stopped in Louisiana and detained by police for the crime of displaying a “Don’t tread one me” bumper sticker on his car. A background check was conducted to determine whether he was a member of an “extremist” group, according to The American Vision website. “Don’t tread on me” was originally displayed on a flag designed by general and statesman Christopher Gadsden during the Revolutionary War. It is depicted as a terrorist symbol in the DHS “Rightwing Extremist” report.

During Holder’s shoo-in confirmation hearings earlier this year, Stephen Halbrook, Second Amendment attorney, detailed Holder’s vehement opposition to the right to bear arms. Holder’s role in the Waco massacre and Ruby Ridge were expected to be brought up during the hearings but were not.Shortly after 9/11, Holder penned a Washington Post op-ed entitled “Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists.” In the article, the future Attorney General argues that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also states that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by various government entities.

In order to make his point, Holder makes the ludicrous hypothesis that Osama bin Laden would be able to purchase an unregistered firearm at a gun show in America.The government now possesses the appropriate “watch lists” and has designated specific categories of Americans as domestic terrorists. If H.R. 2159 becomes law the Obama administration and the Justice Department will go after opponents to their far-reaching plan to disarm the nation and deliver it defenseless into the clutches of bankers and corporatists determined to reduce a once proud constitutional republic to the status of a fuedalist backwater.

Constitution is "narcissistic"...world govt should raise your kids

Notice that the desire of American parents to take responsibility for raising their children, coupled with the fact that American parents are telling the New World Order to keep its hands off their families...is called..."narcissistic" (i.e. selfish). Raising children is not narcissistic. It's the opposite.

Also notice that this UN convention, if enforced, could prohibit parents from teaching the truth about the Bible and Jesus Christ to their children--because, under the convention, the children have the "right" to pursue other lifestyles and religious worldviews. And they're calling for ratification of this right now. 'Narcissistic Sovereignty’ Has Kept U.S. from Ratifying U.N. Treaty on Children’s Rights CNS NEWS - Monday, November 24, 2008 - By Penny Starr, Senior Staff

WriterWashington, D.C. (CNSNews.com)

Advocates for a United Nations treaty on children’s rights blamed American arrogance for it not being ratified by the United States, but critics charge signing onto the Convention on the Rights of the Child could mean international law trumping U.S. state and federal laws and the rights of parents to make decisions about raising and educating their children.The treaty, adopted by the United Nations on Nov. 20, 1989, has been ratified by 193 countries. The United States and Somalia are the two countries that have not ratified it, groups that support ratification said at a press conference at the Capitol on Thursday.“It might sound dismissive, but I think it has something to do with what I would call, and some other people call, narcissistic sovereignty,” Harold Cook, a non-governmental organization representative at the U.N. and a fellow with the American Psychological

Association, told CNSNews.com.But critics say national self-determination is at the heart of why the treaty should not be ratified.“This would be one of the most invasive things we could do as far as the sovereignty of our nation,” Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, told CNSNews.com.Smith said that if Congress ratifies the treaty, it would give the United Nations authority to object to federal and state laws that it thinks violate the treaty and give Congress the power to pass laws to make the country comply with its tenants – a fact advocates do not deny.“Every national government in the world, except the United States, has developed in response to the Convention of the Rights of the Child official detailed national reports on how children are fairing in their country,” Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law, said at the press conference.“And child protection and advocacy watchdog groups have been able to react to those reports by doing their own shadow reporting to the international committee on the rights of the child,” Davidson added.But Austin Ruse, president of the conservative United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNSNews.com that the conventions reflect a worldview that rejects the idea of sovereign nations.“They no longer want independent nations deciding what to do, but good citizens in a new international order,” Ruse said.Ruse said that the very idea of children’s rights is “problematic,” because it sees children as having rights apart from their parents.“It separates parents from their children,” Ruse told CNSNews.com. “The rights of children can only be seen in the context of the rights and responsibilities of the parents.”

Panelists at the news conference portrayed the convention as a way to help children in the United States whose needs are not being met, including every child having access to health care, good nutrition and safe living conditions.“The convention’s articles on non-discrimination and adequate standard of living charge us to seek out exactly those children, families, and communities that live on the margins of society and design equitable policies that meet their needs,” said Dr. Jennifer Kasper, who represented the American Academy of Pediatrics at the press conference.“It states explicitly that nations must not only actively protect children from discrimination, but they also must refrain from actions that may have a discrimination effect on some children.”Ruse said the United States does not need to be regulated by those he describes as “radicals” on the U.N. committees that oversee such treaties.“U.S. laws for protecting children are the best in the world,” Ruse said, “and we don’t need a treaty to help us.”He also said Cook’s remarks about narcissism are a “smear” on the United States and show how his and other groups advocating ratification of the treaty want to promote a liberal global agenda.“It’s a power grab, pure and simple, by radicals like him,” Ruse said.Smith said the most dangerous thing about the convention is that rather than building stronger families, it could damage relationships by giving children “rights” to question their parents’ decisions on a range of issues, including discipline, religious training and education.“It pits children against their parents,” Smith said.When asked about the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the campaign trail, President-elect Barack Obama expressed a willingness to consider sending the treaty to Congress for ratification.“It is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this.”

Groups at the press conference expressed optimism about the new administration, including Meg Gardinier, acting chairwoman of the Campaign for the U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.“We are very excited to think we are finally in a moment in time when the U.S. might very well join that ratification process and we can join the other 193 countries who are currently using this important rights treaty as a pivotal guide to improve the child’s survival, protection and development,” Gardinier said.

Baptist Pastor Says He Was Tased, Beaten by Border Patrol

This clearly illustrates that American liberties are becoming nothing more then a thing of the past. This is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.

Here's your free country...internal checkpoints, no 4th Amendment, and if you assert your rights you get your property smashed and your person tortured. And for those who doubt his account of events, know that I almost always hold back from posting police bruitality news. This kind of thing is becoming more and more common in America. Police and military need to visit Oath Keepers to commit to their oath of office: the Constitution.

Pelosi: We want registration; Holder: 2A won’t stand in our way

Yet again, U.S. Citizens "Inalienable Rights" are being infringed upon.

Canadian Free PressFriday, April 10, 2009
BELLEVUE, WA – Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

“These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. “It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners’ rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off.”

Pelosi’s revelation came during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress “never denied” the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, “We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines…” Gottlieb noted that citizens’ rights do not stop at state lines.

“But that doesn’t really matter,” he observed. “History has shown that around the world, registration has always led to confiscation.”

In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: “I don’t think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon.”

“These comments belie administration promises and Democrat rhetoric that party leaders respect the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the firearm of their choice,” Gottlieb said.

“They imposed registration of semi-autos in Pelosi’s California and it led to a ban, but it certainly didn’t disarm criminals, like the convicted felon who killed four Oakland police officers last month. We know from Holder that the Obama administration wants to renew the nationwide ban on such firearms, but that won’t prevent crime, either.

“The administration and Congressional anti-gunners have declared war on gun rights,” Gottlieb said. “The press seems deliberately blind to the statements from Pelosi and Holder, who blame our gun rights for their incompetence in dealing with crime. More than 90 million gun owners haven’t hurt anybody, and they are tired of being treated like criminals.”

Internet Regulation: In the Hands of Big Government

I was looking through the news this morning, and I stumbled upon this article shown below. It details a new movement in Congress where President Obama would be allowed to regulate "Internet traffic in a state of emergency." Now, I understand why some might think this a good thing, but we must understand that the Internet is a medium where free speech flows. Any regulation of it would would be a violation of that freedom. Furthermore, the language of the bill does not specify what an "information network or a cybersecurity emergency" is; this definition would be left to Obama himself. What then constitutes an emergency? If no boundaries are explicitly stated, then anything would constitute an emergency because the president says so.

Furthermore, as I understand the Constitution, no stated powers in the Constitution would allow for the President of the United States to make such a definition, nor, do I think, Congress has the power to delegate this authority to him, for, as I already said, it is a violation of our first amendment right to restrict the freedom of speech. This seems to be what this bill is about.

This proposition worries me!

Steve Aquino
Mother Jones
April 3, 2009

Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?

Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor—an arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.

The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce “access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.” This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.

Read entire article

Unseen Footage: Riot police attack peaceful protesters at G20

While the police stood off the hardcore anarchists smashing up the windows of the Royal Bank of Scotland, riot squads were ordered to wade into the “climate camp” protesters, a few streets away, and “kettle” them into a very confined space.

The police use this tactic to effectively wear down peaceful demonstrators, thus significantly halting the protest. These scenes were not shown on the major news networks

Ter·ror·ist (noun): Anyone Who Disagrees with the Government

The first amendment to the constitution states as follows, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I think, if you read the following story, you will find that at least two of these "natural rights" are being trampled on.

George Washington’s Blog - Saturday, March 21, 2009The Department of Homeland Security and police forces label anyone who they disagree with - or who disagrees with government policies - as “terrorists”.

Don’t believe me?

Well, according to a law school professor, pursuant to the Military Commissions Act, “Anyone who … speaks out against the government’s policies could be declared an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.”

And according to an FBI memo, peace protesters are being labeled as “terrorists”. Indeed, police have been terrorizing children, little old ladies and other “dangerous” people who attempted to peacefully protest.

And a 2003 FBI memo describes protesters’ use of videotaping as an “intimidation” technique, even though - as the ACLU points out - “Most mainstream demonstrators often use videotape during protests to document law enforcement activity and, more importantly, deter police from acting outside the law.” The FBI appears to be objecting to the use of cameras to document unlawful behavior by law enforcement itself.

And the Internet has been labeled as a breeding ground for terrorists, with anyone who questions the government’s versions of history being especially equated with terrorists.

Now, the state of Missouri has labeled as terrorists current Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters, former Congressman Bob Barr, libertarians in general, anyone who holds gold, and a host of other people.

In other words, anyone who disagrees with the “acceptable” way of looking at things is a terrorist.

How is this different from Stalin or Mao’s use of labels such as “enemy of the state”?

Let's Disarm: Obama's Plan For the Future

I am a lover of the constitution, and when I find those who stomp on it I fear that the republic I so love and hold dear to is slipping away from me. This is the present state of America as the Obama administration seeks to disarm its citizens, one of the first steps in creating a fascist/dictatorial government. I assure all of America that if they succeed in this, I promise they will soon find a way to restrain other freedoms stated in the Constitution. John Locke, one of the foremost political thinkers and influences of the American Constitution, argued that if a government fails to protect the rights of its people, then the people have a right to overthrow that government. I say, and I am sure Jefferson would agree, maybe its time for a revolution, and return to the government of our founding.

Alan Korwin
Infowars
March 13, 2009

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):M1 Carbine,Sturm Ruger Mini-14,AR-15,Bushmaster XM15,Armalite M15,AR-10,Thompson 1927,Thompson M1;AK,AKM,AKS,AK-47,AK-74,ARM,MAK90,NHM 90,NHM 91,SA 85,SA 93,VEPR;Olympic Arms PCR;AR70,Calico Liberty ,Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,Fabrique National FN/FAL,FN/LAR, or FNC,Hi-Point20Carbine,HK-91,HK-93,HK-94,HK-PSG-1,Thompson 1927 Commando,Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;Saiga,SAR-8,SAR-4800,SKS with detachable magazine,SLG 95,SLR 95 or 96,Steyr AU,Tavor,Uzi,Galil and Uzi Sporter,Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).Pistols (or copies or duplicates):Calico M-110,MAC-10,MAC-11, or MPA3,Olympic Arms OA,TEC-9,TEC-DC9,TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,Uzi.Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10rounds.A semiautomatic shotgun with:(i) a folding or telescoping stock,(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacityof more than 5 rounds, and(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder. (I know this list is hard to follow, but just look at all the firearms this adminsitartion wants to ban)

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”

Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.